Where a man going from work in the woods instead of taking the company's bush road came out on railway track and was killed by train.

Where a railway workman on bridge work had been given a ticket home for Christmas holidays and return. On returning he jumped off the train at about the place where his work would be and was injured. This would have saved him a walk back from the station of about a mile.

Where a man working for a railway as section. man, after quitting work in evening, jumped on passing freight to go down the yard to where he had hung his coat when starting work and was injured.

Where a man having met with certain injury the day before asked leave at 11 a.m. to go two or three blocks along street to an emergency hospital to get injury dressed. This took him across railway tracks. On returning, finding a train blocking the crossing, he attempted to climb through and got foot cut off.

Injuries Due to Scuffling, Larking, or Horseplay.There have been a variety of opinions expressed on this type of case both in England and on this continent.

It was held in the recent case (1916) of Parsons v. Somerset, 9 B. W. C. C. 532, that where a railway porter in the course of his employment met with an accident due to his getting on the footboard of a car after the train started, not for any object of his employment but purely for his own pleasure (larking with two young ladies on the train), he was not entitled to compensation.

In another case, Wrigley v. Nasmythe, where a workman who went for some purpose to a fellow workman in the shop, on parting tapped his friend on the back with a rule, and received a push in return from which he was injured, it was held by the Court of Appeal that the accident did not arise out of the employ

ment.

Our board in Ontario has adopted the rule in these cases that if the injured workman is an active partici

pant in the scuffling or horseplay, he is not entitled to compensation, but if while going about his duties he is the victim of another's prank, to which he is not in the least a party, we do not deny him compensation.

I note the following cases from my records coming under this heading.

Allowed

Where a Chinaman employed in a factory was the innocent victim of horseplay-blown up by hose.

Where a man who had been teased by another workman suddenly turned in revenge and hit an innocent party.

Where a man about to punch the time clock was hit from behind by another workman. Injured man innocent of any horseplay.

Where a man in line up for the time clock was pushed out of line by another workman, and to prevent himself from falling, as well as to save his place in the line, he grabbed the workman and his hand came in contact with a sharp knife in the latter's hand.

Not allowed

Where, when a man splashed water over another workman, the latter in trying to avoid the water turned suddenly and, having hose in his hand, turned it on the man who first started the horseplay.

Injuries Arising Out of An Act of God or the Country's Enemies.-Under this heading about the only type of case in which the question has arisen is that due to lightning, but there have been a few cases reported during the last two or three years in England arising out of bombardments by enemy ships or airplanes.

In regard to lightning, the State boards or courts are not by any means uniform in their decisions and it can scarcely be said that there is in this country anything like a well-settled opinion.

The Supreme Court of Michigan recently held that a railway section man, who sought shelter from a

storm in an adjacent barn which was struck by lightning and who was injured, was not entitled to compensation, basing this decision on the argument that the risk was not different from the risk run by other members of the community.

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin also held that where a man working on a dam was killed by lightning, it was not a case for compensation.

The Supreme Court of Minnesota, however, took an opposite view and allowed compensation to a workman who was injured by lightning while seeking shelter under a tree at the time of a storm.

In those jurisdictions where only the first of the two conditions are required-that is, injury by accident during the course of employment, omitting "arising out of, etc"-there can of course be no question, as an injury by lightning is certainly an accident and if this injury takes place during the period of work the condition is complete. I should scarcely have thought that it could be argued, where a man goes into a building or under a tree to seek temporary shelter from a storm, that he has therefore left the employment, yet this point did arise in the Supreme Courts of both New York and Minnesota, and it was held that thus temporarily seeking shelter was not leaving the employment but rather incidental to it.

The decisions in England in lightning cases turn on the question of special risk. Thus, for example, a steeple jack repairing a flag pole is considered to be specially exposed to the danger of lightning; likewise, a man working on the top of a high scaffold was considered exposed to special danger and compensation was allowed. But where a roadman engaged in his ordinary occupation on the highway was struck by lightning, it was held that there was no special exposure to the danger of lightning and compensation was refused.

VOL. XXXIX. C.L.T.-15

It amounts practically to this in England, that in all lightning cases the claimant must prove by positive evidence that the circumstances of the employment exposed the employee to a greater risk than that run by persons not so employed, or not so employed under the same conditions.

The bombardment cases in England turn on much the same point as the lightning cases, viz., the question of special risk or special exposure due to the employment.

In this connection dicta by Lord Chancellor Finlay in the Dennis v. White case above cited are of interest. He says:

"In the case of injury by bomb thrown from hostile aircraft, the fact that workman was engaged on work on a building brilliantly lighted so as to attract the notice of enemy crews might be most material as showing that the injury by the bomb was one which arises out of the employment."

It was actually held in one case (Allcock v. Rogers, W. N., December, 1917, p. 353), where a servant in a hotel whose duties were, among other things, to polish the brass name or sign plate on the outside of the building was injured by the explosion of a bomb dropped in the street a short distance away, that this did not arise out of the employment, or, in other words, that the workman was not exposed to any special risk incident to his employment.

In the famous Hartlepool case (Cooper v. N. E. Ry. Co.) the decision was similar. In that case an engineer, having left his engine to seek shelter while the bombardment was on, ventured back to open the injector in order to prevent damage to the fire box and upon returning again to shelter was injured by a bomb. In was held by the Court of Appeal that this injury did not arise out of his employment. As the Master of the Rolls expressed it:

"The claimant must prove that he was exposed by the nature of his employment to some special or peculiar risk beyond that of other inhabitants of Hartle

pool. The whole town was within range of the guns and there was no evidence or suggestion that they were directed at any particular spot.

Injuries Due to Attempted Robbery, Fighting, Assault, Murder, or Suicide.-I suppose every administering board has occasion frequently to determine cases coming under this heading, and from all the reports I have been able to read it seems quite a generally accepted principle of law in every jurisdiction that where a workman in the discharge of his duty is assaulted either by another workman or by a stranger in attempted robbery of the employer's premises, compensation should be allowed.

A border-line case, however, arose in Massachusetts and compensation was denied. In this case a night watchman was shot by mistake by officers pursuing burglars who had committed robbery in the neighbourhood and were being pursued. There was no suggestion that robbery of the premises claimant was guarding was feared, and he was not fired upon because of his employment, but clearly through mistake. The Court held that the injury did not arise out of the employment.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey also refused compensation in the case of a delivery man and collector who was shot by an unknown person for an unknown cause while in the performance of his duties. There was no attempt at robbery, though claimant had money on his person and it was held that the shooting was not in any way connected with the employment.

We had a rather unusual case in Ontario about a year ago which is also close to the border line, but our board allowed the claim. A night watchman was found dead in the morning, sitting in a chair in the office of his employer, shot through the head, apparently by his own gun. There was nothing which would warrant the conclusion that it was a case of suicide, but on the contrary it seemed probable that